Received Postmarks In The United States, 1879-1913

In response to a recent thread tangentially mentioning received postmarks in the U.S., it occurred to me that a separate thread specifically on them might be helpful to clarify the dates and regulations.

Very broadly, the USPOD required backstamping of mail between 1879 and 1913.

More specifically for those wanting to crawl into the weeds and explore the next level of detail ...

There are always some "forerunner" items. Finding the word "received" before 1879 in uncommon. Perhaps the most common being at Cairo, Illinois which applyied a received backstamp during the civil war. Mail was often slow between home and the troops in the field in the western theater. This backstamp documented the "blame" to the USPOD or the military! In this case an 1863 envelope taking 4 days from Marion, Indiana to Cairo on its way to a soldier in the 34th Indiana Volunteers in Louisiana. No idea how long it took to get down the Mississippi.



Otherwise it is best to use original sources rather than summaries. Fortunately we have the compiled "Postal Laws and Regulations" volumes which appeared about every 8-12 years and the "Postal Bulletin" published daily at that time.

From the 1879 Postal Laws and Regulations, the first notice:

From the 1887 Postal Laws and Regulations:

From the 1893 Postal Laws and Regulations:

From the 1902 Postal Laws and Regulations:


Postal cards and postcards were exempted in 1908 (Postal Bulletin issue #8567, dated April 4, 1908):

Despite the regulations, by 1910 most of the largest cities had ceased to backstamp incoming mail, and it is easy to find examples in the "backstamping era" without backstamps.

A temporary examption was issued during the Christmas 1912 holidays (Postal Bulletin issue #9988, dated November 27, 1912):

And the end of general backstamping was announced in mid-1913 (Postal Bulletin issue #10131, dated May 19, 1913):

And how the streamlined regulation appreared in the 1913 Postal Laws and Regulations volume of October 1, 1913, now mentioning special delivery and registered mail:

And fairly boring from here onward, as it appeared in the 1924 Postal Laws and Regulations volume, (with General Delivery added in 1921, although marking such had been in practice in many places already.)

And as it appeared in the 1932 Postal Laws and Regulations volume

And the backstamping regulations can be traced in the PLand R volumes in 1940, 1948 and beyond through other follow-up titles covering the rules and regulations if one desires.

One can also find a considerabe percentage of airmail covers (philatelic and non-philatelic) with backstamp marks, but beyond what I wanted to go into here today..

When the regulation went in to effect in 1879, clerks typically used their standard "origin" cancel on the back of incoming mail. Gradually some acquired dedicated devices with the word "received" or abbreviated as "rec'd". As cancelling machines came in to widespread use, some manufacturers made special dials or killers which could be quickly exchanged in the machines to mark the incoming mail. And American Postal Machines Company created a variety of "service" dies to replace the flag portion in their machines. Here is a sampling:



Some other machine manufacturers offered the same ability including, Barry, Barr-Fyke, Doremus, Intenational, and Pneumatic (in Indianapolis only).

An excellent overview of the evolution of received markings from one city is found in Leonard Piskiewicz's "Chicago Postal Markings and Postal History", which has an entire chapter devoted to them beginning with forerunner examples as early as 1860.

And a combination origin and "received" mark on the front, well kinda!

And a recent example from 1989, not backstamped properly, which in this case is NOT related to receiving, but to the lack of putting postmarks across the flaos when it entered the mails.



Now I'll step back for a while and let others who want to crawl into the weeds share their examples.

Hi John and all.

A quick note.

Nice summary of back-stamping in general. It is my understanding that the USPO did not require PMs to only use USPO issued postmarking devices until 1902 but did supply some to first and second class POs earlier based on the volume of mail they handled?

Some registered letters were backstamped prior to 1902 if there was an issue with its delivery but not all. When the return receipt became optional (effective date sometime in 1910 according th B-W) failure to backstamp would get the guilty PM a nasty note from the 3rd PMG or worse.

Another comment from the weeds. The 1902 Postal Laws and Regulations is the first citation I can find prohibiting PMs from using other than USPO supplied postmarking devices. Up to then PMs at third and fourth class POs were provided a very basic set of devices for use on mail but were allowed to "purchase" devices from comercial firms.

Russ,

Thanks. The reason why I made this thread was to build upon actual documented postal references and to avoid and minimize the "I remember", "I seem to recall", "I think I read somewhere", "I heard from an old time collector", etc., and was in reaction to such a post on another thread.

Equipment: Supplied vs purchased. The record seems contradictory. There are rules in the mid-1880s outlawing rubbber cancelling stamps, yet they were still being sold by private concerns in the annual Postal Guides at te same time! Richard B. Graham also notes this confusion in his "Postal History Sampler" book. Of course the periodic PL&R collective volumes cite new regulations passed since the last volume, and repeat previous interim enactments, rather than being the actual first release of such new laws, so I suspect it is prior to 1902. I have not made a thorough search to seek clarity as I was looking at the receiving regulations rather than the source of the postal device used.

Registered: This announcement in the May 1, 1894 Postal Bulletin would seem to indicate that all registered mail should have a receiving mark as well, but my digging into the laws and regulations today dealt mostly with the general backstamping requirements of "regular" mail, rather than special categories, so this is somewhat tangential.

Hi John,

The above April28, 1894 circular refers us back to sec. 1093 which I failed to find in the 1893 Postal Laws and Regulations: I see your quote from sec. 502. Am I missing something?

Section 1093 from page 387 of the 1893 Postal Laws and Regulations volume:
"postmark them on the back" about halfway down the paragraph.

John, I have been wondering about the closing date for received cancels for a while now. Thanks for the great information.

A Doremus Type 3 Machine received cancel.

John B, very nice summation of Received cancels for ordinary mail.

I have a fascination with subject concerning Airmail (without aux services like Reg., Special Del.). I haven't delved in PL&R guides yet on this and am extremely interested in regulations or PB references to same.

I just find coming across domestic airmail covers with "only" a Receiving (or transit) date on back very rewarding, as it gives indication of the service level for the related timeframe. Especially interesting are the later examples past mid-20th century when you least expect them.

(Now I'll have to see if I can locate some examples to show... maybe if more chime in, this category will get a topic thread.)

StampsOnMail,
I have not looked much into the regulations in the airmail era, nor done any formal anaylsis of covers, but I get a rough sense that philatelic first flights and other flght-event covers tend to get backstamped at the landing point (as a courtesy to collectors to prove they flew?), but that most regular airmail does not. Does this agree with your observations?